Thalagani @ Tanagane Guru Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Thalagani @ Tanagane Guru Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Exemption from personal appearance before the learned Trial Court, except when specifically required, in view of the Petitioner's employment as an Army Nursing Assistant.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Petition relating to the prosecution of the Petitioner in Crime No.121/2022 (alleged membership of an unlawful assembly protesting the Agnipath scheme) can succeed at this stage, given that his membership of the assembly and sharing of its common object are yet to be tried.

Court's answer

Whether the Petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly or shared its alleged common object are triable issues that cannot be adjudicated at this stage; the Petitioner must establish his innocence before the Trial Court by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses.

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Petition has no merit and is dismissed.

Key takeaways

Considering that the Petitioner is employed as an Army Nursing Assistant, his personal appearance before the learned Trial Court shall not be insisted upon except when specifically required.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 7379/2024 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao) concerning prosecution of the Petitioner, an Army Nursing Assistant, in Crime No.121/2022 registered for offences under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 506 read with 149 and 511 IPC following an alleged unlawful assembly protesting the Central Government's Agnipath scheme, with a reported plan to attack government property with deadly weapons. After investigation a charge-sheet was filed. The Court held that whether the Petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly or shared its common object were quintessential triable issues that could not be adjudicated at that stage, found no merit in the Criminal Petition, and dismissed it. However, considering the Petitioner's employment in the Army, his personal appearance before the Trial Court was not to be insisted upon except when specifically required; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

[3521]

APHC010461782024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7379/2024

Between:

1.THALAGANI @ TANAGANE GURU PRASAD,, S/O. CHINA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC WORKING IN ARMY AS A NURSING ASSISTANT, R/O. BALIJIKOTA STREET, PORUMAMILLA TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

2.R SUMAN, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE ACCUSED O/O. MARKAPUR RURAL PS, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

2

ORDER:

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

The Respondent No.2, serving as the Sub- Inspector of Police, is the officer who recorded the police proceedings. It is alleged that the Petitioner, in concert with more than five individuals, formed an unlawful assembly and engaged in a protest against the Agnipath scheme introduced by the Central Government.

The Petitioner is stated to have harboured an unfounded apprehension that the implementation of the Agnipath scheme would deprive him or any unemployed person of opportunities for recruitment into the Army. The police proceedings further reveal that the Petitioner participated in an unlawful assembly raising protests against the Central Government and that the assembly was allegedly planning to attack and destroy government property and offices by employing deadly weapons. The case was accordingly registered in Crime No.121/2022 for offences punishable under Sections 120- B, 143, 147, 506 read with 149 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the complaint recorded by Respondent No.2.

Upon completion of a detailed investigation, a charge- sheet was filed. The Petitioner must establish his innocence before the Trial Court by cross- examining the prosecution witnesses to demonstrate that he was neither a member of the unlawful assembly nor shared any alleged common

3

object. These matters are quintessentially triable issues and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. This Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition.

Consequently, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, considering

that the Petitioner is employed as an Army Nursing Assistant, his personal appearance before the learned Trial Court shall not be insisted upon except when specifically required.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

Dated: 18.02.2026 VTS